1

Little Albert and Following Research

 

  

Little Albert and Following Research: 

Fear Instilled from Birth

Jessica Holloway

Seton Hill University

 
2
Little Albert and Following Research
Introduction  

In 1917, John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner knew people could be conditioned to do

certain actions like how Pavlov’s dogs would begin drooling as soon as they heard the dinner

bell, but could emotions be something conditioned into children? Watson (1920) chose Little

Albert B., born to a wet nurse, to be the subject of his experiment immediately after he was born

(p. 1). The Little Albert experiment is one that has been taught to introductory level, behavioral,

and various other psychological studies classes. It has also been the inspiration for many other

psychological studies that are trying to replicate the results of emotional conditioning. Although

the experiment, due to its unethical nature, has only been repeated by one other psychologist,

Horace B. English (1929), it has been the inspiration for many other experiments on classical

conditioning and the formation of emotions such as fear. 

Original Experiment

By the time Little Albert was nine months old, Watson (1920) believed it was time to

start testing Little Albert’s reactions to different types of animals and materials such as “a white

rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, with masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning

newspapers, etc. (p. 2). After Watson noted that Little Albert showed no fear or any emotional

reactor toward these different objects, Watson was ready to test the effect of sounds to condition

Little Albert’s emotions. This was done using a large metal pole and striking it with a hammer

(p. 2).  This idea, that an emotional reaction could be conditioned by sounds, was the basis of

Watson’s experiment. 

The four questions asked by Watson (1920) and his team at the beginning of his

experiment were:
3
Little Albert and Following Research
            “I. Can we condition fear of an animal, e.g., a white rat, by visually presenting it

and simultaneously striking a steel bar? II. If such a conditioned emotional response can

be established, will there be a transfer to other animals or other objects? III. What is the

effect of time upon such conditioned emotional responses? IV. If after a reasonable

period such emotional responses have not died out, what laboratory methods can be

devised for their removal?” (p. 3)

When Little Albert was 11 months and 3 days old, the researchers decided it was time to

begin testing to determine if they could condition him to fear something as harmless as a white

rat by banging a pole behind his head any time he made contact with the mouse. On the first day

of testing, during the first test, Little Albert reached for the rat with his left hand and then fell

over when the bar was struck. During the second test, Little Albert reached for the rat with his

right hand, the bar was struck again, and he fell over and began to whimper. The researchers

decided not to push Little Albert any further this first round of testing (Watson & Rayner, 1920,

p. 4). Seven days later, the researchers decided to resume testing. This time, Little Albert reached

out and hesitated, the rat then nudged his hand, and Little Albert immediately responding by

pulling his hand away. During this second round of testing, the researchers would immediately

remove the rat right after contact and present Little Albert with toy blocks for him to play with

and calm down. The researchers ran their test a total of eight times with the blocks being

introduced after each round (Watson& Rayner, 1920, p. 4). Watson (1920) stated on the eighth

introduction of the rat, “the instant the rat was shown the baby began to cry… and began to crawl

away so rapidly that he was caught… before reaching the edge of the table” (p. 5).  

Five days later, the researchers were ready to test Little Albert with other stimuli that

might engage his fear response. They began by running two tests with the rat, followed by a third
4
Little Albert and Following Research
test where a white rabbit was placed in front of the baby instead of the white rat. Watson (1920)

described the encounter: 

“The reaction was pronounced. Negative responses began at once. He leaned as far away

from the animal as possible, whimpered, then burst into tears. When the rabbit was

placed in contact with him, he buried his face in the mattress, then got up on all fours and

crawled away, crying as he went. This was a most convincing test." (p. 6)

Other creatures and items such as a white dog, a seal fur coat, a cotton swab, a Santa

Claus mask, and even Watson’s white hair were tested. Every test produced a negative response

of some sort from Little Albert, ranging from pulling away from the object or creature to kicking

and crying. All of these tests were conducted without banging on the pole (Watson & Rayner,

1920, p. 7). 

            For the next two test days, eleven months and twenty days old and at one year and 21

days old, the rat, rabbit, dog, and sometimes fur coat were introduced to Little Albert. The room

was also changed on the first of these tests days to see if emotional responses could transfer

locations. On each test day, the pole was banged the first time the animals entered the room, but

not again for subsequent tests on the same day. The researchers noticed a decrease in the

intensity of the negative reaction, but that the reaction persisted nonetheless (Watson & Rayner,

1920, p. 7, 10).  

            Little Albert, by the end of the testing, began to employ thumb sucking as a coping

mechanism to deal with his fear. Watson (1920) stated:

5
Little Albert and Following Research
“During the course of these experiments, especially in the final test, it was noticed that

when- ever Albert was on the verge of tears or emotionally upset generally he would

continually thrust his thumb into his mouth.” (p. 13). 

This habit of Little Albert was not further discussed by the experimenters. 

            To go back and answer the four questions originally asked in the experiment, it was

decided that I. fear of an animal could be established through presenting it and striking a bar, II.

the conditioned emotional response could be transferred to other animals and objects, and III.

time did affect the response by decreasing the intensity, but not causing cessation of the

response. IV. The laboratory methods for removal of the response were not discussed in the

experiment.  

Later Research Studies

Watson’s research was a stepping-stone in the field of psychology. Watson was inspired

by Pavlov’s research on classical conditioning and was the first researcher to test the idea of

classical conditioning on humans. Watson’s work was the sole inspiration for Horace B.

English’s (1929) work, titled “Three Cases of the ‘Conditioned Fear Response,’”, in which

English tested the same ideas as Watson, but wanted to compare laboratory tests results to results

from tests made under home conditions (English, 1929, p. 221). 

In English’s first test case, Joan Elizabeth, at 28 weeks and 3 days old, was presented

with a black stuffed cat toy, but as soon as the toy was handed to Joan, her older sister let out a

loud cry. The next time the toy was introduced to Joan, both her parents were in the room. Joan
6
Little Albert and Following Research
very cautiously took the toy, then, only a minute and a half later, began to exhibit signs of fear

(English, 1929, p. 221). 

In English’s second test case, Helen Elizabeth, at 14 months and 19 days old, was tested

in a laboratory setting rather than the home setting of Joan. Helen was presented with a wooden

duck tied to a string, and when the duck was grasped and pulled, the string would cause a metal

pole to be struck by a hammer behind Helen’s head. English (1929) was not able to elicit a fear

response from Helen, but reported:

“Once only in something over fifty trials did the child exhibit what might be called a

worried look. For the rest, she exhibited the startle reflex—that is she blinked and gave a

little jump—and then calmly continued her exploratory attention to the toy. Twice she

turned curiously but not apprehensively to the source of the sound. At no time did she

react negatively to the toy or to the entire laboratory situation.” (p. 222)

In his last trial, English (1929) decided to again work with Helen Elizabeth to see if he could get

past her “iron nerves” (p. 222). Now, at fifteen months of age, Helen had developed a love of

playing with the different shoes that were around her household. When a pair of unknown shoes

was given to her, Helen was nervous and suspicious of them, even moving them to a different

room when they were given to her. Then, when the unknown shoes were placed next to a

familiar pair of slippers, the slippers acquired a negative “mana” from being next to the unknown

shoes that Helen feared (English, 1929, p. 223). It took Helen three months to warm up to the

new pair of shoes (English, 1929, p. 223).

While only the first case of Joan Elizabeth of English’s trials, showed replication of the

same fearful emotional response as did Watson’s experiments with Little Albert, English’s report
7
Little Albert and Following Research
did demonstrate the ability to condition fear in not only a different laboratory setting, but also in

a home setting. By being able to build off Watson’s initial research, English’s research showed

that emotional conditioning is something that psychologically can be done in regular life rather

than just facilitated by a researcher in a laboratory setting.

In 2008, a group of four researchers came together to take Watson’s findings of using

sound conditioning as a way to condition fear in a young toddler and translate it to older

children. The researchers worked with eight boys and eight girls, all aged eight to eleven, who

were shown images of a small white square and a large black circle (Neumann, Waters,

Westbury, & Henry, 2008, p. 5-6). To view these images, the children were seated in front of a

screen while wearing headphones. The children were informed they would “hear an “unusual

sound” through the headphones,” and were instructed to turn a dial to indicate when they were

expecting the “unusual sound” to occur (Neumann, Waters, Westbury, & Henry, 2008, p. 7).

Skin conductance was also measured so as to test the physiological response of expectancy

(Neumann, Waters, Westbury, & Henry, 2008, p. 6). The sound of “metal scraping on slate” was

played during the appearance of the small white square (Neumann, Waters, Westbury, & Henry,

2008, p. 2). The results of the Neumann, Waters, Westbury, and Henry (2008) experiment

showed that while anticipation and anxiety were noted, as evidenced by the turning of the dial

and recorded physiological responses, over each successive trial these responses began to

decrease in severity, heading close to extinction (p. 12). Even with these results, Neumann and

other researchers (2008) were able to conclude “the unpleasant sound would serve as a reliable

[adverse unconditional stimuli] for researchers who wish to study aversive conditioning across

all ages of development” (p. 12). Comparing to Watson’s tests done on Little Albert, this
8
Little Albert and Following Research
research done by Neumann, Waters, Westbury, and Henry also proved the ability to easily

condition fear over something as simple as a small white square.

This conclusion was reached by pulling together research from previous trials conducted

by Neumann and Waters on college adults, and research from Neumann, Waters, Westbury, and

Henry on 13 to 17-year olds (Neumann, Waters, Westbury, & Henry, 2008, p. 11). Through

building on Watson’s research by testing on a different age group, as well is pulling in

information from previous tests on other age groups they conducted, Neumann, Waters,

Westbury, & Henry (2008) concluded that age is not a factor in emotional conditioning. It is

rather something that anyone is capable of undergoing and experiencing.

John Lanzetta and Scott Orr of Dartmouth College were inspired by Watson’s study to

create their study on the “Influence of Facial Expressions on the Classical Conditioning of Fear.”

Lanzetta and Orr wanted to test Watson’s theory that a neutral event could produce an emotional

response when paired with a negative aversive outcome. To do this, eleven females and 25 males

were assigned to either a “happy” group or a “fear” group (Lanzetta & Orr, 1980, p. 1083).

Subjects were brought into the test room and informed:

“Let me repeat that during this experiment you will be looking at some slides, listening to

a tone and at some points a shock will be presented. It is important that you watch the

screen and listen to the tone at all times. Before we start the actual experiment, I need to

take some baseline readings so a slide and tone will be presented; however, no shock will

follow. I will let you know when the actual experiment is to begin. Are there any

questions?” (p. 1083).

9
Little Albert and Following Research
Shocks were never given, but instead loud tones were played in the room. For each of the two

groups, a slide show of faces portraying emotions relating to either of the two focus groups

(happy or fear) and were shown seven times with tones being administered on the second, fifth,

and sixth showings (Lanzetta & Orr, 1980, p. 1083). 

            The first strange finding noted by Lanzetta and Orr (1980) was that the pictures produced

a higher physiological response than the tone in the “fear” group whereas the tone produced a

stronger response in the “happy” group. The “happy” group was overall less fearful and fewer

participants associated the images with fearful emotions. Due to the negative emotions on the

slideshow though, those in the “fear” group were reciprocating the emotions they viewed,

expecting a negative consequence to occur (p. 1085). Lanzetta and Orr (1980) noted that when

paired with pictures of positive emotions, participants interpreted the neutral tone played as a

happy sound and the “fear” group interpreted it to sound more ominous (p. 1086). 

            Although no conditioning appeared to occur with either group, a connection between

reciprocation of emotions based on what was being viewed and the interpretations of noise was

noted from the study. While these results seem to have little to do with the original Little Albert

experiment that inspired the Lanzetta and Orr study, the results could be used to design other

experiments connecting the two together. 

Conclusion

            Watson’s study on Little Albert and conditioned emotional reactions metaphorically blew

up in the psychological world. It raised more questions on ethical standards that first arose from

Milgram’s study on obedience and led to ethical standards being set on the use of children in

experiments. Today, Watson’s experiment is discussed in introductory psychology courses hand

10
Little Albert and Following Research
in hand with Pavlov’s experiment on classical condition of dogs. Watson’s research has been

taught and studied by what one could only guess as millions of students and peers in his field,

and a handful of those have gone as far as taking inspiration to design their own experiments

referencing Watson’s ideas to try and prove and expand on those ideas. The idea of classically

conditioning emotions is still an idea that many still believe possible and many continue to

continue to pursue and prove. Today’s ethical standards make it impossible to legally test the

validity of this statement, but by redesigning the original experiment, it has been able to be

proven at a much less harmful level. While discussed only a little in Lanzetta and Orr’s

experiment, emotions other than fear have been able to be conditioned into participants, such as

happiness. For as long as human emotions are something psychologists are interested in,

Watson’s experiment will be one referenced as proof that our feelings can be manipulated. 

 
11
Little Albert and Following Research
References

English, H. B. (1929). Three cases of the "conditioned fear response.". The Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 24(2), 221–225. doi:

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0072340

Lanzetta, J. T., & Orr, S. P. (1980). Influence of facial expressions on the classical conditioning

of fear. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1081–1087.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077713

Neumann, D. L., Waters, A. M., Westbury, H. R., & Henry, J. (2008). The use of an unpleasant

sound unconditional stimulus in an aversive conditioning procedure with 8- to 11-year-

old children. Biological Psychology, 79(3), 337–342. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.08.005

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. B. (1920). Conditioned Emotional Reactions. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1–14. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0069608